[pizza234]

This is an oversimplification, which is not taking into account human nature and especially social dynamics, which makes things more complex.

Being offensive towards somebody, in isolation, is "normal", but in the context of a group of peers, imitation can fuel a chain reaction, which turns individual offense to group aggression. Obviously we're talking about verbal aggression, but when somebody writes about gang rape, then it's serious business even if it's not real.

There is a significant difference between "airing thoughts" and cyberbullying.

Those are not necessarily "agreed thoughts"; in the context, they can be seen as "lack" of thought, that is, groupthink of people who has little to do with their minds in a certain moment.

Selling a gun is one thing. Putting a gun in a public place with a sign with written "use me" is a very different thing. In the same way, internet comments are already used to channel anger because of their anonymity; if a medium adds groupthink and proximity to anonymity, things develop on a different level.

[hyperion2010]

I don't see how this is an oversimplification. Airing thoughts are different from bullying only in so far as who hears them. This can be seen from the fact that nearly all uni harassment policies define harassment based on the "victim's" perception of being harassed regardless of the intent of the "perpetrator." Furthermore you can't bully someone who refuses to grant you power over their emotions, you can call them as many names as you want but if they just laugh at you and move on then good luck.

That people can be affected by words that people write about them and feel bad as a result is sort of taken for granted (I usually go on a rant at this point about how insane I find it that people willingly grant others power over their feelings but that doesn't usually go over well). The fact that someone can now hear what other people are saying about them is the least of the problems. Spreading rumors behind someone's back can be far more damaging not only to the individual but also to the community as a whole. The fact that anonymity lowers the threshold for public expression of thoughts means that things that were previously aired in private in closed circles are now visible.

From the perspective of someone who cares about their community the fact that I can now see hateful behavior is critical for taking action to prevent REAL harm that can arise from group think. The fact that people are far more likely to agree with something (eg by voting) than actually state it themselves does exacerbate this problem, but upvoting of hurtful comments is a community problem and reveals that something fundamental has broken down in that community and needs to be addressed at the level of the community. I would even argue that it is worse than thoughtless or unthinking: it is habitual, and that makes it even harder to combat.

As a final note hateful speech is something that you don't only want to address when someone is offended by it. The fact that someone is not bothered by being called names does not mean that the behavior of name calling does not need to be immediately addressed and corrected. Right now the only time this happens is when someone complains which is an absolutely horrible system.